I have been reflecting on the 20th century Coptic texts, trying to analyse them. It turns out that they are different from their predecessors because we are not talking about the same language and each has different reference points. There is Coptic language as attested in Coptic literature (Bible, hagiographies, martyrologies, epistolography, liturgical and non-liturgical texts) and there is a revival attempt of something different, I'll call it Neo-Coptic which relies on the grammar of other languages. For example:
1. ⲛⲁⲛⲉ ⲧⲟⲟⲩⲓ a neologism emerging 20th century. It reflects migration from the understanding of ⲛⲁⲛⲉ— as adjectivial verb (Mallon, 1904), verb (Crum, 1939), verboid (Layton 2007), etc. trying to repackage it as an adjective.. The rationale does not lie in Coptic language, the rationale lies in French, English and Arabic languages with their terms of bonjour, good morning, صباح الخير.
This reflects colonial influence in understanding and interpreting the language, trying to mold it to fit into constructs that are alien to it. There are two issues, treating a verb as an adjective and using Coptic as a bunch of words to try to convey a greeting that was not used in Coptic. This replaces traditional greetings in favour of Francophone style greetings.
2. ϩⲁⲛⲁⲧⲟⲟⲩⲓ (ϩⲁ.ⲛⲁ.ⲧⲟⲟⲩⲓ) an attested term with known meaning (Crum, 1939), and etymology (Steindorf, 1904), and representation of το πρωί, and Sahidic ⲛ̅ϣⲱⲣⲡ, as well as clear internal meanings in the Bible and hagiographies.
Yet the meaning and the parsing , is reinterpreted outside Coptic and through the lens of one Arabic version stating الغدوات which creates ⲁⲧⲟⲟⲩⲓ as a consequence (Labib, 1611 AM). This reflects hyperregulation of Coptic trying to reinterpret a term based on assumptions made from outside the language.
3. ⲡⲓⲛⲟϫⲛ̀ⲓⲱⲧ (great father), is repackaged as grandfather. The rationale does not lie in Coptic language. It is in thesaurus of English language, and the French and English terms 'grandpa, grandfather'.
In these examples, the root of the issue is using French, Arabic and English to dictate how Coptic is interpreted and how it should be used. In other words, Coptic is being remodelled to fit external linguistic codes.
So, the discussions are between Coptic language and a Neo-Coptic hybrid lingo that demonstrate linguistic transfer, code-mixing, calques, grammatical Trojan horses, and relexification (De-Hellinisation and borrowing from other languages). In essence, the Neo-Coptic lingo is not trying to revive Coptic language, but rather trying to re-engineer a lanaguge, or speak French, English & Arabic using Coptic words.
